The Other Climate Change Debate: Adaptation

[00:00:06] Bryan DeAngelis: Welcome to this week's episode of What's at Stake. I'm your host, Bryan DeAngelis, a senior partner here and head of the Washington office for Penta. Today, we're looking at one of the defining economic and societal challenges of our time: how the world is going to adapt to a changing climate, and how businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs are stepping up to meet this challenge.

By most estimates, the world will need hundreds of billions of dollars each year in adaptation finance alone by the end of this decade, and today less than 10% of climate finance is directed toward adaptation. At the same time, we've got a new generation of climate technology emerging, spanning AI, resilient agriculture, water systems, insurance, and more. There's a lot of potential to help communities prepare for what's ahead.

Joining me today is Jamil Wyne, an advisor, author, investor, and educator working on climate tech and climate entrepreneurship around the world. He's the founder of the Hazelwood Network, which supports climate innovation in vulnerable regions globally, and the founder of the Climate Tech Bootcamp. He was lead author of Oxford's Climate Tech Opportunity study, teaches a LinkedIn Learning course on climate tech for business resilience, and writes regularly for Forbes.

Jamil, welcome to What's at Stake.

[00:01:31] Jamil Wyne: Thanks a lot, Bryan, for having me. I'm excited to be here, and thanks a lot to our friend Francisco for making this happen.

[00:01:31] Bryan DeAngelis: We just went through your pretty impressive bio, and it's probably a good place to start. Back us up a little and give us some more context about your work—the Hazelwood Network, the Climate Tech Bootcamp, the research you're doing with Oxford. Ground us in all the work you're doing across those fronts.

[00:01:47] Jamil Wyne: Absolutely. In a lot of ways, I'm doing now what I've always done in my career. I've spent a lot of time—it's been about 15, 17 years—working internationally with entrepreneurs and investors that are trying to build new things that solve challenges affecting people.

Sometimes that sounds very broad when I say it, but what it looks like more tangibly is, I started my career in the Middle East and North Africa. I lived there for close to seven years—Egypt, Syria, Jordan, but then worked in Lebanon and Kuwait and Oman and Tunisia, Morocco. So I was very fortunate to be there pre, during, and post-Arab Spring.

Throughout that whole time, when it comes to climate in particular, I was surrounded by high levels of desertification and water scarcity. Obviously a lot of sunlight, so the heat is very strong there. The Middle East is heating up arguably twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Certain parts of it have higher likelihood of becoming uninhabitable at some point, and at the same time they produce a significant amount of oil, and there's a lot of fossil fuel mining happening.

So it's this interesting equation of how do you build solutions that are needed urgently—because at least in that part of the world, as well as many other emerging markets, the conditions that climate risks are creating are deeply affecting people a lot faster than I think we realize—but at the same time, these economies need to grow. We need to generate jobs, we need to generate wealth. So what is that sweet spot? Where do these different nodes or circles in the Venn diagram overlap in such a way where we can support innovation and solve challenges that climate change is introducing into our lives, at a pretty quick pace?

How do we do it inclusively? How do we take an ecosystem approach, meaning we're not just thinking about investing more dollars in companies that are building, but we're also thinking about the policy element. We're thinking about how this is communicated publicly, and how do we bring more people with us, because this isn't going to happen just by having a small coalition of the willing.

So whether you look at it from the angle of supporting entrepreneurs, working with governments, teaching, or just generally advising on it, usually it means I'm trying to take this ecosystem or systems approach. You see that usually across the board in the things that I'm building or working on.

[00:04:07] Bryan DeAngelis: Let's take it from the angle of adaptation versus mitigation. So much of that conversation, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, is always focused on mitigation. What are we going to do to stop climate change? But we've had a few conversations on this podcast and elsewhere over the years that climate change is here, and we have to deal with it, and how are we going to help communities do that?

Your work's very focused on that. Talk to me about the challenge of convincing folks to look at adaptation versus mitigation. Is it really a trade-off, or both?

[00:04:32] Jamil Wyne: Excellent question, and I think it's one that a lot of people are struggling with, myself included, in a lot of ways. Maybe if it would help, we can define them.

Pretty much every technology, policy, investment, set of goals, et cetera, surrounding climate can get broken up into one of two groups: mitigation or adaptation. Mitigation is focused on reducing and removing greenhouse gas levels—renewable energy, EVs, vegan diets, carbon capture. Anything that involves either putting fewer GHGs into the atmosphere or proactively taking them out will fall in the mitigation bucket.

It makes tons of sense. It comes from that school of thought that the reason we're in this challenge we're facing right now is that we've emitted way too much carbon, fluorine, methane, et cetera, and we need to do whatever we can to reduce that flow and, in many cases, start to reverse it proactively and urgently.

In parallel, though, because we've been doing this for so long, the GHGs that are in the atmosphere right now were not put there recently. They've been sitting there for decades, if not even longer. They have extreme amounts of staying power in addition to the heating power that they bring. So even if we start to reverse those levels—even though we're nowhere close to that right now—the time it would take for the Earth to actually start cooling down is significantly longer than we're really prepared, I think, to deal with.

Because of that, we have to start adapting. When I was teaching, I used to say to my students that we could all go green tomorrow. We could all get Teslas, we could all switch to solar, we could start eating vegan, we could start actively trying to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and the Earth would still be getting warmer.

The concept of 1.5 degrees centigrade is effectively a thing of the past now. Countries are preparing for two degrees and even a three-degree centigrade increase from pre-Industrial Revolution levels. So in my book, we don't really have much of a choice but to start prioritizing adaptation, because that's usually the way that humans will feel it first—running out of water, not having food, not being able to go outside for long periods, not being able to insure assets, not being able to forecast the weather. These are things climate change is affecting in real time.

Now, the trick is, when you say we should be focusing on adaptation, most of us—because we tend to be binary thinkers—will say, "Oh, that means we need to stop thinking about mitigation." And that's where the nuance comes in. That's where the fun comes in, but it also becomes challenging because we have limited dollars to spend.

You mentioned earlier we need to be putting hundreds of billions to work. Oftentimes we don't have that much to work with. Amassing that type of capital does not happen overnight. Yes, there's a lot of money sitting on the sidelines, but to move that money quickly is very difficult. So it does feel like we have to make a trade-off, but I think there's an opportunity to educate people on what the intersection of the two looks like.

You can see that intersection sometimes in the technologies themselves. The EVs and the solar units that we're going to be relying on from a mitigation angle will need to get protected from extreme weather events, extreme heat, et cetera. So there's inevitably an overlap—we need to be building resilient infrastructure and technologies. At the same time, you can think about it from an economic and cost angle: the more you mitigate, theoretically the costs of adaptation go down, because we won't have to be spending as much in the future on it. But the more you adapt now, the chances of the infrastructure that you're putting in place to mitigate has more sustainable and staying power.

If we don't treat them as being joined at the hip, it's very easy for them to become rivals instantly. A lot of the work that those of us thinking about boosting adaptation financing flows and supporting adaptation technology development have to do is not assume this binary black-and-white situation where we're defending our work to somebody else. We're actually having to reach across the aisle and show that there's a linkage here. Which is fun, but it's also very difficult.

[00:08:37] Bryan DeAngelis: Yeah, I imagine it is difficult. This was the part of the conversation I was particularly interested in. If you think of our clients—if you're a CEO or a CFO, and you've written about this a little bit, and you're thinking about your own climate risk—it's gotten a lot quieter over recent years on what you're doing as a global leader on climate issues. You're probably in that binary thinking of: do I want to be seen as someone that's helping to mitigate this, where it seems like a lot of the voices are, or do I move to adaptation? I'm curious how that argument you just laid out is appealing to businesses. Are you seeing them move out of that binary thinking a little bit?

[00:09:22] Jamil Wyne: It's a really good question. Let's think about it from the angle of, if you are a CEO, your metric of success at a minimum is: does my company still exist tomorrow? And if the answer is yes, then okay, great—can I grow it? How much you want to grow it and how much you want to reap the rewards of that growth is your third set of questions.

Adaptation and resilience, in a lot of ways, put that first question at risk. If you're in the tourism industry or hospitality industry, and you're relying on people being outside for a prolonged period, or you're relying on having a lot of people come visit you to use your facilities—if you're running a hotel, a travel company, et cetera—extreme heat will put those people at risk. Flooding can destroy your assets, or at least damage your assets to the point where you can't use them as easily.

To me, adaptation is a forcing function. A CEO can't really afford to ignore it any longer. In theory—and I don't like this school of thought either—they can ignore the need for renewable energy. In some ways you can say that, yes, it's becoming more cost-effective, but if it takes too long to install and the alternative is more readily available, which is the situation we're running into with a lot of data center construction right now, where there's this interesting trade-off of saying, well, yes, in theory renewables are going to be more affordable and we can rely on them to power our data centers, but if we don't have adequate access to renewable energy, maybe we'll just have to defer to the incumbent solution.

CEOs or business leaders can say, "I don't necessarily have to prioritize this, even though I know I should," and that's usually when we talk about sustainability, science-based targets, reducing your emissions. I sincerely hope they do not take their eye off the ball, but many have. I don't think they have any choice, though, when it comes to adaptation and resilience, because that really is the survival of their business. It will create fundamental changes they won't be able to recover from if they don't think about it.

The LinkedIn Learning course is about that. A lot of the research I do also tackles that issue. Mother Nature is the ultimate forcing function in this equation, and she's not too concerned about what we think.

[00:11:27] Bryan DeAngelis: Do you feel they get that? That, like you said, flooding's happening in the States where they are, wildfires, whatever it may be—that's going to impact their bottom line and the health of the company pretty quickly?

[00:11:44] Jamil Wyne: Yeah. And you raised a really good example there. The way that most of us are going to have to take climate change seriously, not just because we appreciate its existence, but because we appreciate the severity and urgency of it—it's almost like two forms of taking it seriously. Do I believe in it? And then, do I feel it immediately affects me and I have to do something about it?

Fires, flooding, et cetera, are really good examples of immediate-term threats that require instantaneous reaction. You can't just sit there and let it happen. You have to do something about it.

Other types of climate risks could fall into what we would call—no pun intended—a slow-burn category, where gradually your supply chain becomes less and less stable. Maybe water levels in the canal or seaway that you use for transporting goods slowly go down. They don't disappear overnight, but they slowly go down to the point where it's harder for that ship to pass through. Or temperatures increase in such a way that the costs of cold storage go up, or the reliability of the cold storage you rely on to transport goods goes down. Certain assets you own become harder to insure. That may not happen instantly.

The smarter leaders will be the ones not just reacting to urgent threats, because any leader will have no choice but to react then. The really smart leaders are going to be the ones thinking way ahead of the curve and saying, "We have a global supply chain, or we have a globally distributed employee base, and the different climate risks that are going to impact the people or the assets in those different locations will ultimately find a way back home." That's where it's going to be much more critical for them to be thinking about it.

Hemingway wrote in The Sun Also Rises something like, "My bankruptcy came very slowly, and then all at once." That's what's going to happen for CEOs in this space. It'll feel like you have time, and then one day you won't any longer. The smart ones will be using the time wisely that they have right now.

[00:13:53] Bryan DeAngelis: I want to get deeper into some of that, but let me ask you about world leaders first. Last year at COP30, we saw a number of countries come together and agree to triple the finance for the Global Goal on Adaptation. As much as I'm curious about that, I'm maybe more curious how the geopolitical issues we find ourselves in today may have distracted from those goals, or maybe made them all the more important. As we face wars, supply chain disruptions, some of these issues come right to global leaders' plates. Are they staying committed to this? Is it even more important to them now to focus on adaptation?

[00:14:40] Jamil Wyne: Good question. If we go back to COP—and I think we can even think a little bit beyond COP, because COP is, at the end of the day, the preeminent gathering of global leaders around climate change. What gets said there carries probably more weight than even, say, at a World Economic Forum. People get frustrated with COP because, how do you get 180 countries on the same page? My heart goes out to people that have to mediate this. But it's necessary.

What I would say is that, on one hand, both COP and other events—gatherings, but also signed agreements and announcements over the past 12 to 18 months—have, I think, accelerated the conversation around adaptation. There are some converging forces here.

One is just the rise in near-term climate risks manifesting themselves in our lives a lot faster than we had anticipated. The US, I believe, in 2023 had somewhere between 20 and 30 climate-related natural disasters that had over $100 billion worth in damage, if I'm not mistaken. That was the highest on record, and we will probably keep exceeding that record for years to come just as things get more severe and it's much more difficult to prepare for these things. When there's a wildfire cascading through a forest, it's very difficult to stop it at that point, so the damage is really starting to be done.

On the other hand, as you rightly pointed out, new announcements and commitments around increasing the amount of overall adaptation funding. You also see new venture capital funds getting created in adaptation, which means investors aren't just seeing this as the right thing to do, but they're seeing business opportunity. You see small funds of $5, $10, $20 million getting launched, but you also see several hundred million dollar PE shops opening up around adaptation.

You see Singapore announcing that this is the year of climate adaptation for them, which was an announcement that the Ministry of Environment made last year, that 2026 would be the year of adaptation. You have Bill Gates in one of his quarterly letters saying, "We need to be thinking about how do we measure impact of climate efforts in terms of humanitarian assistance and human impact," which again, is adaptation. The conversation around AI and climate is moving into how does AI build resilience.

One of the more interesting things for me is that you have McKinsey and Bain and BCG speaking up saying, "We're not just going to measure the fallout from climate change any longer. We're going to put a dollar estimate on what the size of the adaptation economy looks like." So now we have a market-sizing initiative happening finally. None of these groups got together and said, "Let's collectively make these announcements." They all happen in an uncoordinated manner, and in my opinion, as soon as you start seeing uncoordinated events happening that are all pointing to the same thing, it turns into a signal.

JP Morgan recently put out a report on what climate tipping points mean for global financial markets. You have the biggest banks in the world, the biggest consulting firms, some of the most powerful governments and high-net-worth individuals all at different times saying, "We have to think about this." That doesn't mean anybody's giving up. It just means we're getting more realistic.

The term I'm using to describe it to myself is, I think we're entering an era of climate navigation, where we're realizing that we're not at a point any longer where we can think of this as a binary win or lose. We have to admit that this thing is here to stay. It's not really an on-and-off switch. I used to teach a course called Systems Thinking and Climate Change, where I would argue that you don't defeat a system, you just learn how to live within it, and you try to adjust the way that you live and adjust the system over time—a.k.a. navigation.

That's the lens we're going to have to start thinking through moving forward. Adaptation is going to equal some form of creative navigating of this new reality. We will not be able to stop mitigating in parallel, but we're going to have to start doing a lot more on the resilience side.

[00:18:50] Bryan DeAngelis: That is a fascinating way to think about it. I was teeing up two follow-ups—we either go into the climate tech or the AI question, but I think the navigation point, I would love to hear more of how AI is going to be both maybe a nice guide for us through that navigation, but there's also of course the concerns about energy use and what's coming there. I can read one article and AI's the villain, and I can read another article and AI's going to really help us get through moments like this. You've done a lot on this—I'm curious where you see it as maybe a little bit of both, or maybe more positive than negative.

[00:19:30] Jamil Wyne: It's a question that I feel like we've got to ask, and then we've got to be ready to say we're still figuring it out. But I'll take a crack at it.

I sometimes think that climate and AI actually have a lot more in common than we realize. Sometimes we treat them as binaries—you're either good or bad. People will say, "Climate change is creating all these business opportunities," and Larry Fink just a few years ago said the next unicorns in the world will be focusing on climate in some way. These will open up new opportunities for wealth generation and impact. Other people say we need to put the genie back in the bottle as soon as possible. So we treat them sometimes as it's one or the other.

Both are very complex systems, where you don't necessarily say we can defeat them or we can be defeated by them. We're living in their world now, in some shape or form. They are here to stay for the foreseeable future, and no matter what we do, we have to figure out how to navigate both of them.

You're right that AI uses a tremendous amount of energy and water, and as countries and companies enter the AI race, the constraint on natural resources is just going to go up. The demands on water—this is already happening in parts of both the US and other markets outside of the country where water scarcity is already an issue. I'm from Southern Virginia, and Virginia, I only relearned recently, has become the data center capital of at least the US, if not the world, putting enormous constraints on already scarce water supplies there.

The UAE is also making a play to become a big player when it comes to AI. Makes tons of sense—they've been on the cutting edge for quite a while when it comes to innovation. But the Middle East is home to some of the most water-scarce countries in the world, and the UAE is a desert. So in some ways it doesn't make a lot of sense, because you're going to be putting yourself in a more difficult position. You're going to be doing more of the thing that got us here. Yes, there's increased talk of relying on renewable energy to power the data centers, but if you don't have access to renewable energy infrastructure and it's a lot easier to power via fossil fuel created energy, then you're probably going to default to the latter. That part I really don't have an answer for. It's going to grow, it's going to develop, and it's going to be a mixed bag of results.

What sometimes gets lost in the conversation when we position AI as the villain here, though, is that we were already well on our way to exceeding 1.5 and maybe even 2 degrees Celsius increase. I remember talking about this with our friend Francisco when I was putting the Forbes article together. We were sitting there thinking, "Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that at some point we were going to not be in this situation." AI happened to push us closer across the finish line, so to speak.

Now, on the resilience side of things, this is where we're starting to scratch the surface, and I think it's really exciting. If you think about what we need to, quote unquote, adapt, a large part of that is going to be information. What happens in certain parts of your town that are going to be subject to extreme heat or flooding? You can take a guess at what that could look like, but without the data to help inform it, it's going to be harder.

Things like digital twins, algorithms that can help us much more effectively understand what different scenarios are going to look like in extreme weather conditions—that's going to be extremely helpful for policymakers and decision-makers at the local level. The other thing is, we forget that AI can be used to do really helpful surveying of the population. That's something we're working on in some of our climate comms work, where we're able to very quickly understand what public opinions around things like extreme heat look like, and then take that information to help inform political leaders on how to talk to their constituents about these issues. It does not solve the fact that the extreme heat is coming, but it helps us prepare for it much better.

Same thing—we have a great company in one of our programs called Satellites On Fire. They're a VC-backed Argentinian startup focusing on wildfire forecasting. They've built a pretty sophisticated model using AI as well as other tools to figure out when a forest fire's coming, and you give advance warning. It's similar to meteorologists predicting hurricanes. They don't stop the hurricane from coming—at that point, it's happening. But giving people that window of opportunity to react is huge.

There's a role for AI in this, because it's going to help us understand issues much better, much faster, and ideally react to them faster. It does not take away the fact that the risk is here already, and that's where I start to disagree with the crowd that says AI will solve climate change, because it's really difficult for me to understand what that looks like. But at a minimum, I think it can enhance our preparations, which in a lot of cases we are not prepared for.

[00:23:59] Bryan DeAngelis: It goes to the core of what we do here at Penta—a lot of it is about how do we get the right information, how do we do that scenario planning, whether it's through digital twins for a wildfire or just thinking about how a whole region will be adapting over the next several years. But that kind of information to policymakers, to give them the real-world implications, not just the theoretical of where we think things might be headed, could be critical for a lot of these countries, regions, populations.

[00:24:17] Jamil Wyne: Absolutely. What we forget sometimes, living in the US—because I do some work in the US, but a lot is abroad—is that our society is pretty saturated with information. If we want to understand something, we can pull out a PwC report, we can read any number of briefs that different consulting firms have put out. There's a lot of data sets out there that we can learn from.

And even we would be probably the first to admit that a lot of the data we need to build resilience and to prepare isn't available. So imagine what that can look like in other parts of the world too, where they don't necessarily have as much access to information. When I say just scratching the surface, my hope is that's where a lot of the time and effort can be spent.

[00:25:01] Bryan DeAngelis: What pairs with that is the communications you touched on a minute ago, and I did want to ask you about that. So much of this is going to be about convincing people and getting them to adapt—again, as governments or regions or even individuals—and understand what they need to do on the adaptation side of this thing. You're doing a lot of work there, and before we wrap up, I'd love to share with the listeners more on that work.

[00:25:26] Jamil Wyne: Of course. The way that got started was we were talking to a family office that had a lot of interest in understanding what is a new way of talking about climate change that doesn't create too much doom and gloom in people. It's easy to talk in very cynical, dark terms about climate change, apocalyptic terms, and it scares people to the point of inaction.

It's also easy to think about it in terms of technological progress and access to different types of solutions that make you think, "Okay, maybe we've got this thing covered, and all I've got to do is just wait until somebody figures it out for us."

We also sometimes just confuse people when we say things like 1.5 degrees centigrade. The US is historically the biggest polluter, and we don't even use centigrade. So 1.5 doesn't really mean a lot to most people in the population. Even now when I hear it—the temperature has gone up many degrees since this morning. So thinking about it in terms of temperature change, you're like, "Well, 1.5 really can't be all that much, actually, so I guess we don't have to worry about it." That usually just means it takes a lot longer to describe to people what it actually means. As soon as that happens, you've probably lost their attention. There are also certain themes that even if you do have their attention, they just don't resonate with them.

When we talked to this funder, they were coming from a really smart position of: we've not adequately described the risk to people, and we need to start changing that fast, but how do we do it? We did this pretty big scan and did a ton of qualitative research with experts across the US on how climate is being discussed. What was really refreshing—and I know this is going to sound a little bit ironic—was that nobody was really satisfied.

Sometimes in industries, you meet with a lot of confidence. If you sat with the AI crowd or the VC crowd, which I roll in from time to time, there's a lot of optimism. It's very forward-thinking. Momentum's all headed in the right direction. This crowd was very self-reflective in saying, "I'm not sure if this is working," or, "We know it's not working, and we're really restless, and we're trying to figure out how to do it better."

Off the back of that first phase, we've been able to partner with a couple of groups, and some new funders as well, that are very interested in building new approaches to talking about climate change. What we've focused on is new techniques of communicating with political leaders around extreme heat—just one area we're looking into right now. We'll look into more down the line. That is for us, hopefully, the first of many things that we can do in this space, because the more we talk about it, the more I realize this is a point people are extremely restless on.

The challenge I think we're going to be facing soon is, what's the North Star here? One reason mitigation has succeeded as much as it has—and we need to do more of it, of course—is because there's a North Star. You know if it's working, and you know when it's not working. With comms, just like adaptation, it kind of touches everything. With comms in particular, are we trying to get more policies passed? Are we trying to recycle more? Are we trying to get people who deny it to believe in it? Are we trying to get people that have believed in it but have deprioritized it back into the fold? A wide range of outcomes. It's hard for us to know what the North Star is, which is a fun challenge to have, but still quite challenging.

[00:28:33] Bryan DeAngelis: I was going to end on this question, and this might be a tough one then. But I always like to end a little forward-looking. If we have you back on the show in five years, what do you need to see in those five years to come on and say, "We've been tremendously successful on this endeavor"?

[00:28:49] Jamil Wyne: There's no escaping the need to increase the amount of funding. We crossed the $1 trillion threshold in annual climate funding a couple of years ago, so more allocating needs to happen. We're still several trillion short, so there's a lot of ground to be covered there. One metric of success is just: has more capital gone out the door, and how fast did it go out the door?

The other is that when you look at the needs for new technologies, whether in the mitigation domain or adaptation, a lot of what we have is still sitting in laboratories. People love to say things like, "We have everything we need now, we just need to scale it," but there's a lot that's still stuck in the early prototype and pilot phase. Whether you're thinking about it from a renewable energy or battery charging and storage angle, or different technologies that are going to be needed to help cool people in extreme heat circumstances, a lot of this is still nascent, and we need to get it from that zero-to-one phase really fast. There's something to be said about the speed at which we can move things into the market.

From the adaptation and resilience angle, you asked a really good question earlier about what business leaders should be thinking about. What we want them to do is be building really sophisticated adaptation and resilience strategies, and we want them to be, hopefully, public about it—so we can understand what they're doing, and you can encourage others to follow suit. What's happening right now is that even if they're not being public about it, they're still doing it, which is good. At a minimum, we want them to prioritize it and do it.

But we want others to say, "Coca-Cola is doing this, and BASF is doing that, and Unilever is prioritizing it, and we're trading notes, we're sharing insights, we're collaborating on it," because we realize there's a shared definition of success here. I would want to see a lot more public discussion of it, which would mean we also understand that it's symbiotic to mitigation. If in five years' time we can say we've really built a strong narrative around how the two have to be joined at the hip, and we're finding solutions that can help advance both agendas at the same time, I think it would be amazing.

[00:31:07] Bryan DeAngelis: Hopefully it doesn't take us five years to have you back on the show. But we'll be watching, and I'm sure a lot of our clients and colleagues up in Capitol Hill and elsewhere will be working on this stuff. Really appreciate you coming on and joining us today and sharing a lot of this information on climate adaptation.

[00:31:25] Jamil Wyne: Thank you so much. It was great to be here. Just really appreciate the opportunity, and hope this is first of many conversations we can have.

[00:31:25] Bryan DeAngelis: I hope so too. And for our listeners, we'll be sure to put some of the links to Jamil's work in the show notes. As always, remember to like and subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts. Follow us on X at @pentagrp, and on LinkedIn at Penta Group. I'm your host, Bryan DeAngelis. Thanks for listening to What's at Stake.